A review of open-field host range testing to evaluate non-target use by herbivorous biological control candidates

被引:32
作者
Schaffner, Urs [1 ]
Smith, Lincoln [2 ]
Cristofaro, Massimo [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] CABI, Rue Grillons 1, CH-2800 Delemont, Switzerland
[2] ARS, USDA, European Biol Control Lab, F-34980 Montferrier Sur Lez, France
[3] BBCA Onlus, Via A Signorelli 105, I-00123 Rome, Italy
[4] ENEA Casaccia, Via Anguillarese 301, I-00123 Rome, Italy
关键词
Weed biological control; Host specificity; Risk assessment; CERATAPION-BASICORNE COLEOPTERA; LATIPES KOROTYAEV COLEOPTERA; WEED BIOCONTROL INSECT; CONTROL AGENT; GALERUCELLA-CALMARIENSIS; SPECIFICITY TEST; MUSK THISTLE; CHRYSOMELIDAE; WEEVIL; RISK;
D O I
10.1007/s10526-018-9875-7
中图分类号
Q96 [昆虫学];
学科分类号
摘要
One of the fundamental challenges of pre-release studies in classical biological weed control is to assess and predict the likelihood and consequences of non-target effects. Unless a candidate biological control agent is proven to be monophagous through conventional starvation and host-specificity tests in quarantine, open-field host range studies can be important in predicting the likelihood of non-target effects since they reveal the host selection of herbivores displaying the whole array of pre- and post-alightment behaviours. Over the course of its 53-year history, the purpose and the design of open-field host range studies have changed considerably, with more recent studies clarifying or refining specific questions related to one or a few test plant species and using a set design. We discuss the opportunities and challenges of this approach and suggest that future open-field host range studies should be more hypothesis-driven and apply different experimental designs that facilitate the interpretation of the results.
引用
收藏
页码:405 / 416
页数:12
相关论文
共 58 条
[21]   Successes We May Not Have Had: A Retrospective Analysis of Selected Weed Biological Control Agents in the United States [J].
Hinz, Hariet L. ;
Schwarzlaender, Mark ;
Gassmann, Andre ;
Bourchier, Robert S. .
INVASIVE PLANT SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT, 2014, 7 (04) :565-579
[22]  
Horner T, 2004, BIOL CONTROL INVASIV, P42
[23]   Ecological host-range of Lilioceris cheni (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), a biological control agent of Dioscorea bulbifera [J].
Lake, Ellen C. ;
Smith, Melissa C. ;
Dray, F. A., Jr. ;
Pratt, Paul D. .
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, 2015, 85 :18-24
[24]  
Marohasy J., 1998, BIOCONTROL NEWS INFO, V19, P13
[25]  
Monfreda Rosita, 2007, Zootaxa, V1662, P35
[26]   Classical biological control:: exploiting enemy escape to manage plant invasions [J].
Mueller-Schaerer, Heinz ;
Schaffner, Urs .
BIOLOGICAL INVASIONS, 2008, 10 (06) :859-874
[27]   Assessing the risks of releasing a sap-sucking lace bug, Gargaphia decoris, against the invasive tree Solanum mauritianum in New Zealand [J].
Olckers, Terence ;
Borea, Candice K. .
BIOCONTROL, 2009, 54 (01) :143-154
[28]  
Page A., 2006, Economic impact assessment of Australian weed biological control
[29]   Examining olfactory and visual cues governing host-specificity of a weed biological control candidate species to refine pre-release risk assessment [J].
Park, Ikju ;
Eigenbrode, Sanford D. ;
Cook, Stephen P. ;
Harmon, Bradley L. ;
Hinz, Hariet L. ;
Schaffner, Urs ;
Schwarzlander, Mark .
BIOCONTROL, 2018, 63 (03) :377-389
[30]   Safety in New Zealand weed biocontrol: A nationwide survey for impacts on non-target plants [J].
Paynter, QE ;
Fowler, SV ;
Gourlay, AH ;
Haines, ML ;
Harman, HM ;
Hona, SR ;
Peterson, PG ;
Smith, LA ;
Wilson-Davey, JA ;
Winks, CJ ;
Withers, TM .
New Zealand Plant Protection, Vol 57, 2004, :102-107